Deliberate ignorance-a barrier for information interventions targeting reduced meat consumption?

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology & Health Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1080/08870446.2023.2182895
Philipp Kadel, Ira E Herwig, Jutta Mata
{"title":"Deliberate ignorance-a barrier for information interventions targeting reduced meat consumption?","authors":"Philipp Kadel, Ira E Herwig, Jutta Mata","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2023.2182895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite abundant information about negative consequences of consuming meat, consumption in many Western countries is many times higher than recommended. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that people consciously decide to ignore such information-a phenomenon called deliberate ignorance. We investigated this potential barrier for information interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In three studies, a total of 1133 participants had the opportunity to see 18 information chunks on negative consequences of meat consumption or to ignore part of the information. Deliberate ignorance was measured as the number of ignored information chunks. We assessed potential predictors and outcomes of deliberate ignorance. Interventions to reduce deliberate ignorance (i.e., self-affirmation, contemplation, and self-efficacy) were experimentally tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The more information participants ignored, the less they changed their intention to reduce their meat consumption (<i>r</i> = -.124). This effect was partially explained by cognitive dissonance induced by the presented information. While neither self-affirmation nor contemplation exercises reduced deliberate ignorance, self-efficacy exercises did.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Deliberate ignorance is a potential barrier for information interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption and needs to be considered in future interventions and research. Self-efficacy exercises are a promising approach to reduce deliberate ignorance and should be further explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":" ","pages":"1656-1673"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2023.2182895","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Despite abundant information about negative consequences of consuming meat, consumption in many Western countries is many times higher than recommended. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that people consciously decide to ignore such information-a phenomenon called deliberate ignorance. We investigated this potential barrier for information interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption.

Methods: In three studies, a total of 1133 participants had the opportunity to see 18 information chunks on negative consequences of meat consumption or to ignore part of the information. Deliberate ignorance was measured as the number of ignored information chunks. We assessed potential predictors and outcomes of deliberate ignorance. Interventions to reduce deliberate ignorance (i.e., self-affirmation, contemplation, and self-efficacy) were experimentally tested.

Results: The more information participants ignored, the less they changed their intention to reduce their meat consumption (r = -.124). This effect was partially explained by cognitive dissonance induced by the presented information. While neither self-affirmation nor contemplation exercises reduced deliberate ignorance, self-efficacy exercises did.

Conclusion: Deliberate ignorance is a potential barrier for information interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption and needs to be considered in future interventions and research. Self-efficacy exercises are a promising approach to reduce deliberate ignorance and should be further explored.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
故意无知--减少肉类消费的信息干预的障碍?
目的:尽管有大量信息表明食用肉类会产生负面影响,但许多西方国家的肉类消费量却比建议消费量高出许多倍。造成这种差异的一个可能原因是,人们有意识地决定忽略这些信息--这种现象被称为 "故意无知"。我们对这一潜在障碍进行了调查,以了解旨在减少肉类消费的信息干预措施:在三项研究中,共有 1133 名参与者有机会看到 18 块有关肉类消费负面影响的信息,或者忽略部分信息。故意无知以忽略信息块的数量来衡量。我们评估了故意忽视的潜在预测因素和结果。我们对减少故意忽视的干预措施(即自我肯定、沉思和自我效能)进行了实验测试:结果:受试者忽视的信息越多,他们减少肉类消费的意愿改变得越少(r = -.124)。这种效应的部分原因是所呈现的信息引起了认知失调。虽然自我肯定和沉思练习都没有减少故意无知,但自我效能练习却减少了故意无知:故意无知是旨在减少肉类消费的信息干预的潜在障碍,需要在未来的干预和研究中加以考虑。自我效能练习是减少故意无知的一种有前途的方法,应进一步加以探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.
期刊最新文献
Predicting adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines: a comparison of Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. 'Welcome to my world': a thematic analysis of the lived experiences of people with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis during the UK COVID-19 lockdown. 'It has been the hardest decision of my life': a mixed-methods study of pregnant women's COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Psychosocial and health stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic and their association with sleep quality. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with asthma: a co-produced mixed-methods study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1